What do you think of PE for 1/700 ships? Is the effect/effort worth it?

This is indeed a worthwhile topic to discuss.  My own personal answer to the basic question is "yes," but I freely acknowledge that there's plenty of room for disagreement.

I've talked about small-scale plastic and resin ship models at several of our model club's meetings, and I always start by saying "this particular part of the hobby isn't for everybody."  I had the good luck to be born near-sighted.  For many years, though I had trouble recognizing friends from across a room, I could do just about any model-related task without magnification.  (A standing joke at the maritime museum where I used to work was "You can tell when Tilley's getting serious:  he takes off his glasses.")  Now, at age 58, the old eyes are having trouble focusing at close range - especially in less-than-bright light.  The optician has made me a set of bifocals, and a set of single-vision glasses that are only for closeup work.  They help a lot.  But there's just no denying that model building isn't as easy, or as much fun, as it used to be.

I can remember when it was customary for experts to pronounce that such things as radar screens were "un-modelable" in scales smaller than about 1/200.  To my mind the proliferation of photo-etched parts is one of the greatest developments ever to hit the hobby, and in some respects those parts actually work better in small scales than in bigger ones.  (To my eye, at least, 1/350 guardrails often look like strips of metal with holes in them - which, of course, is what they are.)  Combined with the increasing number of very-high-quality kits on the market, photo-etched parts create the potential to turn a 1/700 ship model into something resembling a piece of intricate jewelry.

Another factor:  money.  I'm tremendously impressed by the quality of the latest and best 1/350 kits, but the prices (several hundred dollars for a battleship or carrier) are simply out of my reach.  (I might be able to justify such an expenditure if I could tell myself that I'd get to work on the kit immediately and spend a year or two working on it.  But the truth is that it would end up in my stash, and if I ever did get around to it I'd probably finish it in a few months - at the most.)  I can buy an excellent, state-of-the-art battleship or carrier in 1/700 for $35, plus $15 or $20 for aftermarket parts, and get three or four months' worth of enjoyment out of it.  And the finished product will fit in the curio cabinet alongside my other warships.  (I'm not sure where I'd put a 1/350 battleship.  My wife, normally a very understanding and appreciative woman when it comes to my hobbies, probably would object to putting it on the mantle in the den.)

But the fact remains that anybody who has vision problems, or arthritis, or any number of other physical frailties, is likely to find working in 1/700 scale more frustrating than enjoyable.  And such a person shouldn't feel the least bit embarrassed about admitting it, and concentrating on some other phase of the hobby.

I've wondered more than once how the plastic ship kit business might have been different if the aftermarket part business had blossomed before, rather than after, the introduction of the "Waterline Series" made 1/700 a standard scale.  (Photo-etching, of course, has been around for a long time, but if I remember right it really started having a big impact on ship modeling in the early eighties.  Tamiya, Hasegawa, Fujimi, and Aoshima had introduced the first of the "Waterline Series" kits about ten years earlier.)  If they'd anticipated the appearance of White Ensign, Edouard, Gold Medal, Tom's Model Works, etc., would the manufacturers and hobbyists have picked 1/700 as a standard scale?  I rather doubt it.  Maybe 1/600, the old favorite of Airfix and Aurora, would have been seen as a better idea.  I guess we'll never know.

At any rate, the good news is that, for those who can handle the prices, there are plenty of excellent 1/350 kits and aftermarket sets out there.  So to each his/her own.  I have no idea what the future may hold, of course, but it looks to me like we're in the midst of what will be known for decades to come as a golden age of warship modeling.

I like the idea.  I have a couple Hasegawa 1/700 aircraft carrier kits (Essex and Hancock), and at the very least, for the rails and the aerials, I want to replace the kit plastic with photo etch.  I don't need to make a museum model, but I think it will enhance the kit.  But being a nostalgia builder, I don't think it ill of anyone who doesn't choose to do it, but I typically don't look for aftermarket anything myself, I'd rather try scratching it.  Except for decals, I like that there are many, many sets of various decals available.

But ultimately, I'm not a competition builder, and I believe very firmly in building what you want, the way you want, and I can enjoy looking at anyone's work, no matter the subject, and talking about how he built it, and the background, the history, the story, whatever.

Regards,

Brad

In short, I think the effect of photo-etch in 1/700 is great.

With that said, yes, I can hear lots of arguments about how the railings should not be visible at all from the scale distance we view a 1/700 model from.  But I believe the important result is an aggregate of the visual effect.  I add photo-etch radars, masts, railings, watertight doors, and firestations, and I believe they considerably enhance the look of the ship model. Even though overscale, they add to the look of extra work and thought that has been put into a model.  And comparing photo-etched radar to plastic radar parts is no contest.You can sometimes clean up a plastic lattice mast, but there is rarely hope for a plastic radar array.

I know I am abusing scale considerations - my railings are too thick (rail-wise), the paint adds thickness, and I fudge when I set the railing back a bit from the deckedge for the "waterway" effect, (also making it easier to install the part) when my setback is more of a scale 8-12", instead of the correct 4-6".  Sorry 'bout that.  As stated above, it's my model.

My models won't go into a museum, but on the few occasions I have shown them to non-modelers the photo-etch is an impressive addition.  

On the other hand, you didn't ask about crew figures, and I absolutely refuse to use crew figures on my models, for a number of reasons.  I don't like their typical flatness, I don't want to try to paint them, I don't want to try to bend them to proper attitudes, I don't want to try to tell a story with them...  So I have my own set of double standards.

 Difficulty?  Yup.  My eyes are old too.  At 55, I need reading glasses just to read a book, and my workbench has a magnifier and three lamps, florescent, natural color and standard high-intensity.   My keys for working with p-e are light, good tweezers with a gentle grip, good light, magnification, good light, the Hold 'n Fold tool, good light, the Tamiya bending pliers, and lots of good light.

Rick Heinbaugh

I have to admit it - my first 1/700 scale ship, and the first model I had built in more than 30 years, was very nearly my last. After I got over the shock of how small the actual model was (a Victory-class cargo ship, all of 7.25 inches long), my brain went into serious denial when I upwrapped the PE fret that went with it. There was just no fricking way that the people who created it intended other humans to actually use it.

But I persevered. Lost a lot of bits to the all-to-common Tweezerpult Effect and the dreaded Carpet Monster. And came to think that in 1/700, the models themselves are usually so small, that PE is the one thing that can create the "wow factor" with the casual viewer. Is PE a PITA? Sometimes, yes. Is it worth it? Absolutely. If someone can etch it, I am going to at least try to use it. Because to me, PE makes the difference between a 1/700 ship that is a Faithful Replica of the Real Thing, or Just Another Pool Toy. 

I am also 55 (Are we detecting a trend among ship modelers?), and am arthritic.  But, I always use PE for my 1/700 ships for the reasons given above.  Yes, PE in such a small scale can be difficult but doable.  As for the central question to this thread, that depends on the builder.

Some of the nicest ship models I have seen were a collection of Kriegsmarine ships in both 1/700 and 1/720 scale built by a Medical Doctor who had served onboard Prinz Eugen and Admiral Hipper during WWII.  This was back in the 1970's when all the standard German ships were available but PE was not.  This man's painting skills were superb; his subtle shading made the Aztec stairs look like shipboard ladders and his radar screens were beautiful.  The anchor chains looked passable and the AA guns had nice shading between barrels that made them stand out.  The only other touch was the rigging (done with piano wire).  His ships were worthwhile models that included no PE.

Bill Morrison

I guess Im the young one at 45 ;)

I just started PE for first time ever, on a 700 scale modern DD. I suggest getting a Dragon premium kit, you can find them on the cheap side on several online stores who have them on sale almost all the time. They include some railings, couple radars, couple odds & ends. Makes a huge difference  This is my WIP, build is on hold at the momment, but the bottom line is that PE does make a difference and it is not THAT hard to start...

/forums/1093346/ShowPost.aspx

You can get generic doors, ladders, etc and slowly add stuff to each one of your new builds.

tankerbuilder wrote:

...1/350 is the smallest I will put p.e. on .My old eyes start to strain after about thirty or forty five minutes . I do have to admire anyone who is that into detail !!

I hear ya about your vision, tankbuilder, I'm losing focus at close range, especially in my right eye, I can't see clear detail as close as I used to, maybe 5 inches in front of my face.  And I paint 54mm figures, and build 1/48 and 1/72 aircraft!  So I finally broke down and bought an Optivisor, well, not the brand, but a clone.  And boy, am I glad I did!  It really makes a different.  If you think about getting one, look at shows for vendors selling tools.  I got mine from a guy at Cold Wars in March, in Lancaster PA, for $10.  He had another model with lights that was $15, which I passed up, but now that I'm getting used to using it, I wish I had gotten the lighted one.

tankerbuilder wrote:

...Question , how do you even get to do clear canopies at that scale ????  The ship that caught me most was a model of the HORNET with billy mitchells planes on it . It hadclear canopies on every part of these little planes that they are supposed to have ...

Those planes were probably molded in clear plastic.  Trumpeter has lines of carrier aircraft in 1/700 and 1/350, but I don't know if they were the first to do so.  But it saves me from trying my idea of filing off the solid canopies on my Hasegawa 1/700 airgroup, and replacing them with bits of clear sprue.  I may still try that, just to see if I can do what I picture in my head.  It's basically what Bachmann Bros. did with their old Mini-Planes line.  But those little clear aircraft are great!  Just paint them first with the interior color, then paint the exterior color.  The clear plastic has depth, so you see down through the canopy, and it looks like an interior.

Regards,

Brad

JMart,

What PE set are you using for that DD you are building?  Is there a specific set for this class of ship?  I have started the Dragon 1/700 USS Charles F. Adams, building it as the USS Benjamin Stoddart for my father, who served aboard her in the mid-1960's.  The PE set that came with the premium edition kit did not include WT doors.  Thanks for your help!

Bill Morrison

tankerbuilder wrote:

Hey --- BARON ,guess what ? I found a knockoff of an OTT light that works well in conjunction with my scroll saw magnifier light . I still won,t build in anything smaller than 1/350 because another sign of age has crept in . I shake to much sometimes to do anything smaller .  tankerbuilder

Excellent!  I hope it means you can enjoy building, and you don't have to give anything up.

If I have any advice on 1/700 PE (besides patience, patience, patience), it's shop around.  There is a wide range in quality (if you measure it by rail thickness) of 1/700 PE railings.  I know the rails are already small enough it's hard to see things like that clearly sometimes, but for three-rail (which I think technically means two rail plus something along the bottom) there is an ultra-fine railing set by GMM, their 1/700 "Gold PLUS" ultrafine IJN warship railing set.

I had trouble with railing falling over (is this a common problem?).  Anyway, I started to use a scribing tool on the deck where I was planning to place the railing, and I partially countersink the bottom rail into the deck.  Also, the railing pieces tend to stay where I put them better this way.

 Recently I bought some USN cruiser-destroyer railing which came in alot of different styles: 3-rail, 4-rail, rail with diagonal brace pieces, ... even rail designed to look like sagging chain link railing.

I think that cranes are definitely a step up over the kit plastic.  The IJN PE plane catapults were better than plastic.  I expected that to be the same for my New Orleans class CA, but that had to be one of the most complicated catapults ever invented (multi-elevation walkways along the two sides of the catapult including railings, with a turntable contraption in the center).  I'm thinking I need to do these over.  Conversely, the platform for the four searchlights amidships turned out beautifully.  A very graceful and delicate looking structure if I ever saw one in 1/700.

I saw a few comments about rigging in this forum.  I try to use #9 Dai Rikki monofilament for 1/700 ships.  It's almost like working with human hair.  I've heard that it may not be available any more (I got it from Pacific Front about three years ago).  What I discoverd was that the finer the monofilament, the easier it was to tie it in knots.  It gets stiffer as it gets thicker.  I use generous amounts to make knotting easier, and then trim it back.   On the plus side, it's nearly invisible from a couple of feet away, which is what I think warship rigging should look like (it's almost impossible to see ship rigging in many of the old WW2 photographs also).

Dave